Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

SxE, Vegetarianism, Veganism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Outlaw_(A)_Punk, Oct 1, 2009.

  1. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Isn't that a Tina Turner number? Just kidding. I've explained this repeatedly, but, it seems something is getting lost in translation. Therefore, I'll give it another try.

    Why is sentience important? (Just a reminder, 'sentience' will be used by myself to denote 'human-level intelligence'.) Well, if you didn't have it you couldn't ask the question. Of course, that's flippant.

    Sentience is important for several reasons. First, because it is so rare. To our knowledge, we are the only creature in the universe to posess it. I'm reminded of Arthur C. Clake's famous observation; "Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying." I would have said "awesome" instead of "terrifying", but I think the point is clear. However, despite the real possibility that we are not alone, (Ex; The Drake equation.) we have no concrete evidence of this, and thus cannot be sure of this. (The Fermi paradox.) This would make the extinction of the human race an even greater tragedy, not just simply because we are humans, or the existential horror of it, but because the universe will be without consciousness. The universe will not mind, but I should think it a horrible thing for a universe to exist without consciousness to perceive it. This is what I meant by 'judges of the universe", which is sort of a paraphrase of Kant.

    Second, sentience matters because of the boundless possibilities it allows. Perception, creation, and experience. Truth, beauty, and love. Art, poetry, and science. Knowledge, liberty, joy. On, and on , and on. Whether or not they are realized, every sentient mind has the possibility for these things. Like the line from "Hamlet": "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving how express and admirable? In action, how like an angel? In apprehension, how like a God?"
    This is one of the reasons murder is so horrifying to us. Not simply because it's antisocial, or because it goes against our evolutionary imperatives, but, primarily, because it reduces the sum of all these possibilities to zero.
     
  2. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    That was an excellent post NGMN85, I specially liked the part where you realize you can be flippant but that it never helps your argument to take a 'TONE' with someone discussing an opposing view. Your arguments are much more persuasive when you keep a level tone and stay humble. I would call that growth, and thank you for clarifying the 'judges of the universe' thought, because it can be percieved in several ways, some of which are not positive.
     
  3. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Ah, ok, so you talking about sapience ;) I like to keep my options open, and am willing to admit that there may be, and very likely is, sapience / consciousness, but not as we know it (Jim). In fact I am willing to accept that even a tree has some kind of consciousness that is totally beyond my comprehension (not difficult), so I try to be kind to trees (just in case), or even a carrot, which I will eat anyway, but I got to eat something, init. I didn't make up the rules of nature, wish I had, sure I could have done a better job of it...
     
  4. back2front

    back2front Experienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    Concur
     
  5. back2front

    back2front Experienced Member Experienced member


    95

    0

    0

    Nov 26, 2009
     
    NGNM85, your tone continues to be patronising and when I point this out I'm suddenly a 'wise-ass'? But let's be grown-up, eh.

    This will be the last time I post in this thread.

    I think all of what I'm saying is certainly 'within reason'. There is a chasm between philosophical concepts (idea and theory) and reality on the ground however. Hence when we give 'equal consideration' based on a philosophical concept that certainly doesn't spell out that we give equal rights. It means we afford some rights, and within reason. This means we might minimise our impact on animals, it certainly does not mean we raise them on absurd pedestals. When you take into consideration enviromental and health concerns and see the interconnectedness with enviromental and health concerns then that idea of minimisation needs to be taken further. To isolate one particular area does not negate the other points. A leaked UK government report from last year suggested legislation asking people to eat less meat in a bid to reduce greenhouse gases from methane. While we might minimise the suffering to animalsfrom an ethical/philosophical standpoint, we might consider further minimisation in light of these recent development

    A few minor points - you seem to have convinced yourself that there's a problem with sodium - well if you eat any product that contains a lot of sodium regulalrly it will be a problem. Fruit and vegetables are especially low in sodium. Highly processed meat substitutes are a different kettle of fish however and I would advise people to steer clear of them. I am a qualified nutritionist by the way. I can also tell you that meat and dairy are the two food groups implicated in ALL major health problems such as heart disease and cancer, as well as dementia. I mentioned this earlier. Anyone who eats meat/dairy should consider reducing it to 20% of their overall diet for their own health. This centres around issues of alkalinity/acidity and potential hydrogen (pH). The issue of B12 - it's made by bacteria - if you drink from wells or natural springs you will get B12, if you leave a little soil on your veg you will get B12 (e.g. the Hunza peoples). Even those eating flesh should really be eating organ meats to get adequate amounts otherwise they are just at much at risk of B12 deficiency. Vitamin D is a potential issue especially for those living in northern countries. Vitamin D is made by contact of sunlight with skin so exposure is essential. D is involved in calcium uptake - not enough D - less calcium absorption - which affects bone and nerve construction and maintenance. 15-30 mins exposure to sunlight daily should be sufficient. Can be an issue in winter - some fungi contains D as do several leafy greens. Anyone concerned about this should take a supplement.

    That aside there's two final points I'll make. Concerning vivisection I accept that there ARE alternatives ALREADY available which are far more accurate than using data from a different species. The problem is that vivisection is an industry based on profits and losses and not moral implication. Here is an extract from something I wrote a few years ago:


    "The drug thalidomide, synthesized in Germany in 19 53,
    showed no adverse reactions in rodents, rabbits, cats or dog s
    at “outrageously high levels”. No side effects were noted. And
    yet after the “non-toxic” drug went onto the market there were
    some 10,000 reported cases of birth defects in mothers who
    had taken the drug. It is an oft quoted example but there are
    many others.

    Rofecoxib was a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)
    developed by Merck to treat osteoarthritis, acute pain
    conditions, and dysmenorrhoea. Following rigorous testing the
    drug was approved as safe and effective by the US Food and
    Drug Administration (FDA) on M ay 20, 1999 and was
    subsequently marketed under the brand nam e Vioxx. Over 80
    million pe ople were given the drug but by 20 04 the drug had to
    be withdrawn because it actually increased the risk of stroke
    and heart attack. Another drug, Bextra, was withdrawn by
    Pf izer after there w as 155 reports of adverse reactions.
    More recently the chemical company TeGenero was said to be
    “shocked” when 4 m en almost died after taking the drug
    TGN1412. Some of the m en were swollen to elephantine
    proportions. Another later lost his fingers and toes. And yet the
    trials on animals had shown no adverse conditions. TGN1412
    had actually been tested on chimpanzees, our closest ge netic relative.
    The monkeys had bee n given do ses 500 times h igher than
    that given to the m en a nd yet they showed no adverse
    reactions.

    Also in 2006 11 men died in Japan a fter taking the drug
    Aricept prescribed for Alzheimer’s disease. 326 other cases
    had suffered from strokes an d hea rt attacks.

    These few examples offer a clear illustration that animal e xperimentation
    is a dangerous game. Scientists might insist that these a re just
    a few isolated incidents out of a long list of success stories but
    there are two points arising from this assumpt ion that nee d to
    be properly addressed.

    The first point is that there is and always has bee n an
    alternative to drugs. There are 5 000 years o f historical use of
    herbal m edicine – that’s a t least ten times more ‘field research’
    than modern a llopathic m edicine. There a re other forms of
    complimentary a nd a lternative medicine that can be used to
    great affect with many o f today’s biggest d iseases so why
    don’t we utilize these natural remedies? Well the central
    problem is that drug companies cannot patent he rbs and
    therefore they cannot profit from them. They can attempt to
    isolate a specif ic alkaloid in an herb but a lkaloids in isolation
    oft en lead to problematic side effects not seen in w hole herbs.
    The fact that herbs cannot be patented immediately m eans
    that no funding will be p rovided and so the scientists then tell
    us they just do n’t work and that we n eed to take their drugs. It
    has b een shown in various studies that cancer cells cannot
    exist in the presence of the he rb turmeric yet billions a re
    pumped into anti-cancer drugs annually at the expense of
    countless animals. This is the reason why this writer will not
    donate money to cancer research.

    The second point we ne ed to look at is that animals tested for
    anything other than medical products ha ve just no reason
    whatsoever and are m orally unjustifiable. That leaves the
    medical tests an d there are numerous alternatives:

    Microdosing is a new system o f obt aining data enabling human
    testing to be carried ou t at the early stages o f drug
    development. The system depends on the u ltrasensitivity o f
    Accelerator M ass Spectrometry (AMS), one of the m ost
    sensitive measuring devices e ver invented. Its accuracy at
    predicting human metabolism is unsurpassed!

    DNA chips – enable the study of pharmacogenetics (th e stud y
    of genetic variat ion that gives rise to differing response to
    drugs), which, in turn, ena bles the pract ice of personalised
    medicine. T his is the concept that since each person is
    genetically unique; m edicines should be designed for
    individuals, rather than our current ‘one drug f its all’ ap proach.
    DNA chips a re computer wafers with tiny wells where human
    genes can be exposed to a new d rug, for instance. The
    computer then reads which genes are turned on or off (or up o r
    down) by the experimental d rug.

    Microfluidics chips – again just 2cm wide, have etched into
    them a series of tiny chambers, each containing a sample of
    tissue f rom different pa rts o f the body. The compartments are
    linked by microchannels through which a b lood substitute
    flows. The test drug is add ed to the blood substitute and
    circulates around the device; thus m imicking w hat goes on in
    the body on a m icro scale. Sensors in the chip feed back
    information for computer a nalysis.

    Computer modelling – virtual human organs and virtual
    metabolism programmes can now p redict drug effects in
    humans far more accurately than an imals can.

    Autopsies – though neglected of late for a number of reasons,
    post m ortem studies remain the best method of studying the
    effects o f a disease on the hum an body.

    Stem cell research – offers potential promise of treatment for a
    wide variety of diseases. Human stem cells have a lready been
    used successfully to treat some leukaemias, as well as
    improving outcomes for h eart at tack patients a nd for some
    patients suf fering from Parkinson’s disease.

    New imaging technologies – such as
    Magnetoencephalography (MEG), m agnetic resonance
    imaging (MRI), functional MRI (fMRI), magnetic resonance
    spectroscopy (MRS), positron emission tomography (PET),
    single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT ),
    event-related opt ical signals (EROS), transcranial magnetic
    stimulation (TMS) and o thers are o ffering a view o f the hum an
    body – in particular, the brain – that cannot be gained by
    studying animals.

    Prevention – M any of our current d isease epidemics could be
    prevented by highlighting the p roblems with overconsumption
    of flesh, fast food, chemical add itives a nd alcohol/drug based
    life-styles. We are what we eat an d taking control o f our own
    health now could be a vital decision.

    To summarize – animal trials do not offer even a 40%
    likelihood of predicting their effects in humans
    (percentage based on reearch published in the Lancet). Likewise,
    researching hum an conditions using animals is misleading and
    can result in illness and death as we have already seen. A
    cursory glance through the British National Formulary will
    reveal vast lists of side-ef fects from m odern drugs. Therefore
    there is ne ither practical nor moral justification for conduct ing
    animal trials, and what governments and scientists are doing
    by supporting such practices is m erely supporting profit a t the
    expense of animal and human welfare. Nothing new there
    then."

    About 15 years ago I wrote another artcile, which I'm sure your glad I won't include here, in which I discussed eating flesh. My concern was that the choice whether or not to eat meat is a bourgeois one afforded by our Western heritage. It would be ludicrous to suggest veganism to Caribou eskimos or other peoples were geographical reality dictates what they can and can't eat. What I suggest, and what I've always suggested is that we reduce within reason.

    FInally I have noticed that you are suggesting that the term sentience should only be applied to humans. That is to say, you have decided this. It is more accurate to use the term human sentience as animals have a 'level of sentience' too ergo animal sentience as opposed to human sentience is correct and to differentiate is inaccurate. I know what you are saying however, no really I do - humans have far greater capacities than animals - I accept that and equate it into my moral choices, but also within reason. Many of our scoial mores are based on Judeo-christian moralities which stem from biblical interpretation. Genesis speaks of dominion and human-centricity. It is human-centric morality that is used as justification for all and any form of attrocity so what I'm saying is that once you go down the road of 'superiority' (you quoted the Bard - "we are gods", judges of the universe etc ) you present the same criteria that a racist might use, or a sexist, or a homophobe - this is what happens when you attempt to quantify sentience too. We are smarter than animals therefore we are superior. Because they are inferior we can do what we want to them and should not be concerned about them because they are (apparently) not as smart as us - it doesn't compute but this is what is implied.

    I value human life dearly and I put it in front of animal life but that doesn't mean I have no moral implications towards animals. I value all life and I see its interconnectedness and I am wary of presenting humans in isolation from it. (I have some interest in Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis in this respect but I dislike romantic new-ageists generally). When you take interconnectedness into the picture there is no argument - value life and minimise your impact upon it!

    I've put my position forward and don't think I need to repeat it further so I won't comment further here. Please remember there are real live people behind these keyboards and screens, treat 'em with respect \m/
     
  6. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I'm more interested in being right than being popular. That said, it just seemed you were trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Just a post or two ago I posted a fairly lengthy response to your questions outlining sentience and morality to which you simply responded to with; "Thought so."
    So, it just seemed odd that all of a sudden we're supposed to be gentlemenly about this.

    Obviously, there is a disagreement about what constitutes "within reason."

    Most definitely.

    This is all very broad. I mean, I can totally agree with that but that's a very blanket statement. The issue is the specifics.

    But, there's a huge difference. The case for reducing meat consumption for health or for the environment is essentially ironclad, you can cite facts and figures and there's really no room for debate. Creating totally new ethical and moral standards is a very different project, and, for reasons I've already articulated these arguments have very apparant weak spots. It might be more emotionally potent, but from a logical perspective it's a much tougher sell.

    In people who are obese, have heart problems, or other specific medical conditions, especially so.

    That's what I was talking about.

    Very sensible. Again, I don't really have any argument with that.

    Ehh.. I think it's something people should definitely be conscious of if they plan on becoming vegan/vegetarian.

    Vitamin D deficiency is a huge issue, even among people who eat a mixed diet. Based on some of the reports I think everybody should try to be aware of it.

    Granted. However, animal data has proven useful in many drug trials, not to mention other areas of medical research like expirimental surgeries, genetic engineering, etc.

    A VERY long list.

    Alright, let's stop right there. Folk medicine was used for so long because only fairly recently in the history of our species did we have the technology to really understand and treat disease. I would also state that for quite some time it was believed the sun revolved around the earth. Just because folk medicine has existed for a long time doesn't mean it's reliable.

    There may be a bit of truth to that, but let's put this in perspective. Western medicine is the best game in town. If you have a brain tumor, you don't want to go to a witch doctor or an acupuncturist. Some folk medicine has been shown to be helpful, there are herbs that have medicinal value, like ginseng or ginkgo biloba, there are studies to suggest that. However, a lot has proven inconclusive, or only marginally useful.
    As for turmeric I found references to a couple high profile studies. However, I doubt many oncologists would recommend it over, say, chemotherapy.

    Presumably you'd still need animals to test toxicity, as I understand it.

    In a few years (Barring an existential disaster.) we will all be treated with genetic medicine. It's very promising.

    Yes, fine, great. Medicine is not my area, but everything I've read suggests that these alternatives are promising in some instances, but still insufficient in many cases. Where animal testing can be replaced WITHOUT affecting the reliability of the research and without being prohibitively expensive; I say go for it. I would imagine most of the scientific community would say the same. I also have no doubt that this will happen.

    Prevention is good, across the board, but I think that's sort of a given.

    Definitely.

    Again, we'd have to define what "within reason" means, because I doubt it means the same thing for you as it does for me.

    Here is where terminology becomes a roadblock to communication. Again, I encounter it mostly in scientific or science fiction texts so that's how I use it, animal rights publications use it in a different sense. When I use the word 'sentience' I'm referring to human-level mental faculties.

    Genesis does say that; however, while I may agree to a certain extent, I'm using a totally different methodology. You won't find many who are more hostile to religion than myself. My reasons are firmly grounded in facts and logic.

    Incorrect. No, I'm sorry, that's totally wrong. Other ethnic groups, or sexual orientations might be different, but they are no less human. All attempts to prove otherwise are just psuedoscientific nonsense, at best. They could also be easily proven to be false.

    No, it's not merely an issue of being "smarter", there is much more to it than that. Intelligence is a software issue, I'm talking about hardware. Also, I don't apply this to humans alone. As I said, any 'sentient' being applies. If we were to encounter a sentient extraterrestrial, or, much more likely, if (Or, more likely; "when".) we create an Artificial Intelligence, we will be morally and ethically bound to treat it the same as we would like to be treated. This is why I brought up the dolphin study. Second, this is sort of a straw man argument. As I said, I condemn animal abuse. Also, there IS a difference, and that difference centers around the objective and the utility.

    I agree for the most part, although I take a different view. As I've said, in many ways a computer is just as 'natural' as a bird's nest.

    That's a fairly innocuous statement.

    I'll concede a measure of respect for people when there is reason to, however I'm under no obligation to respect their ideas.
     
  7. A Better World

    A Better World Experienced Member Experienced member


    78

    0

    0

    Feb 28, 2010
     
    Personally vegetarian and drug/alcohol free, drugs put me in a really bad place mentally and i made the decision to stop using them and i generally dont associate much with the people who do though i have nothing against there lifestyle choice it isnt mine any longer and people who do drugs have a tendency to talk alot about drugs i smoke so i cant really callll myself edge though i do stay away from the promiscuos sex too easy for someone to get hurt that way you never know if the person your sleeping with has feelings for you or you end up falling for them and they just wanted sex too much drama vegetarianism for me is a step to veganism though its been four years already im still dependent on someone else for my food (youth shelter) so i have difficultys making the full step for me it sjust a better way to live
     
  8. Bunny

    Bunny Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    201

    0

    1

    Mar 13, 2010
     
    I went edge at the age of 16 and completely vegan at 17 and for the last bunch of years my health and well being has improved drastically. I went edge after seeing the devastating affect that drugs, alcohol, and promiscuous sex had on those around me. All i knew was that i did want to act or end up the way they have. Vegetarianism is a great stepping stone, but veganism just always made sense to me. From food to clothes to cosmetics etc, its all vegan. Even if you can't give up milk or whatever its not difficult to use products that are free of animal testing and cloths with imitation leather.
    I realize that this lifestyle is not for everyone, ( wish it was because it is a better way to live) but i still try to be understanding to a certain degree of their choices, even if i don't understand them.
     
  9. xOutspokenx

    xOutspokenx Active Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2010
     
    Straight Edge and vegetarian, been so for 2 years. Wanted to be vegetarian for years but was not able to do so whilst I lived with my family and gone Edge after realizing what excessive alcohol consumption was doing to me psychologically and physically. Have not looked back since.
     
  10. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    the only connection between the two is that certain corporations that sell alcohol and tobacco also exploit/abuse/torture animals, or at least operate with full support of it
    although i believe that to be an extremely important factor i don't think most people even give a shit and they are only scenesters of sorts
    and no i am not sXe but don't frown upon anyone who is because i understand there are way more, natural reasons for deciding to refrain from smoking,drinking,doing drugs,ect.
     
  11. xOutspokenx

    xOutspokenx Active Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2010
     
    Ah I don't know. I mean, the idea that there is a connection between animal rights and Straight Edge is due to a background of exploitation by certain corporation is right, but I believe there is more to it.

    To me, at least, it's also an extension of the idea of being completely in control of myself and my action. By being sober I can control what I do/eat and as I am in complete control of what I do and can at all time rationally understand what I am doing, it only makes sense to be vegetarian/vegan due to certain moral considerations that are more evident with a clear mind.
     
  12. Time bomb

    Time bomb New Member New Member


    2

    0

    0

    Apr 7, 2010
     
    I choose sXe because i like to be clean even if I'm 17 years old i have tried everything form alcohol to cigarettes to drugs(ok only pot) but as i was more and more into this movement i said to myself that i won't be doing any of this things
     
  13. ILuvEire

    ILuvEire Experienced Member Experienced member


    70

    2

    0

    Apr 5, 2010
     
    A friend of mine has been vegetarian for a few years, I used his beliefs as a jumping off point for my own opinions, but I've generate my own somewhat:

    First off, I don't think that anything has the right to take another's life away without just cause. Wild animals killing each other do it for survival, but humans have gotten to the point where we don't physiologically NEED to kill in order to live. Added onto this was a study I read, about the neurological processes of animals. It showed how the way other mammal's brains fire with pain is so eerily similar to humans. It hurts when I get cut. Why, when I don't need to, would I inflict pain on another creature? The most important part of any action for me is what sort of pain it will cause to others, the less pain the better. Something as simple as eating shouldn't be something that causes another to loose their life. It's pointless, in my opinion.

    The other big turning point for me was when I saw an ASPCA commercial late at night. They showed a horse, that was set to be sent to the slaughterhouse to be made into glue. I used to live on a farm, I've been part of the cycle of life and death of horses, and it just hit me, that all those horses we took care of in my childhood - those horses were the same as the ones being killed to make glue, or the cows that were killed to make my hamburger. And how much really separates them, and my pet cat, or my family, or even me? Not much, we're all mammals.

    These are the reasons I gave my family and friends, but there is a much more anarchist reason I chose to stop eating meat as well. Reading up on food politics, and food economy was an amazing eye opener. The amount of money that passes hands, in particular for beef, is just jaw dropping. It just fuels the whole capitalist struggle. And then seeing comparisons of meat consumption for America, compared to places like India, just makes me sick. Then on top of that, I read about Brazillian ranchers leveling huge plots of the rain forest so that they could graze cattle there. I don't want to fund that business.

    So I've been trying to eat locally and doing my best to eat as few animal products as possible. I still eat eggs and milk in very small amounts, but those are really the only animal products I consume.

    As far as straight edge goes, I really don't identify with the movement at all. I've had quite a bit of experience with them, and they came off as very elitist to me (I'm not making a sweeping statement, but that's been my experience). I fit the criteria for straight edge, I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or eat meat (I'm not sure how vital the sex thing is, but sex...well...I enjoy it, and it hurts no one, so live and let live, eh? :p ) but I'm just really not a big fan of the movement. The other thing, is that with smoking and drinking, I really don't see the problem in them. I mean, beyond the obvious fact that it funds capitalism and helps it get nice and big, which, as a consumer, one cannot help but do that (although obviously I'd expect an anarchist that drinks or smokes to definitely do it in a way that doesn't help capitalism). I don't smoke, because it's not good for your teeth, and I just in general don't like the smell. Same with drinking, I'm just not a fan of alcohol. Doing other drugs, I choose to abstain, for the simple fact that I take medically prescribed drugs for medical conditions, and I don't want to screw around with that. Plus I just in general don't like to have my mind altered.

    But do I have a moral objection to drinking and smoking? Feh, go for it, do what you like, it's not hurtful.
     
  14. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
  15. Anom

    Anom Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    LOL
    I'm such bad antifascist, i should just switch sides :p
     
  16. antitude420

    antitude420 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    127

    0

    6

    May 16, 2010
     
    I'm not sXe. I smoke pot/hash, I smoke tobacco, I drink a lot and I popped some pills, I found the effects that drugs have on our brain interesting but I totally respect the sXe lifestyle, though I always thought that everyone should try to do some drugs on their teens and early adulthood, just to know how it feels.

    Addiction is highly over-rated when it comes to illegal drugs like pot, pills, coke and such, I never felt addicted to anything other than cigarretes, probably because I mainly smoke pot/hash, which isn't all that addictive and because I think that hard drugs are only worth trying once in a while, really like, two times a year or some drugs just once in a lifetime and others, like heroin and crack, never.

    But I'm not imposing my lifestyle to anyone so if you like the sXe lifestyle and if it makes you happy, go for it! :D

    I'm neither vegan or vegetarian, I've tried to but I can't seem to make it last more than a week or two...It really sucks, I guess I should try harder...
     
  17. Cocytus

    Cocytus Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    304

    0

    7

    Oct 14, 2009
     
    I dont trust people that are sXe, i see it as a form of mental weakness. Same thing with rehab addicts. I see them as cowards unable to find it within themselves to overcome thier problems.
    Ive done so much drinking and drugs in my life and never had a problem stopping.

    As for non vegeterian/vegans, I look down upon people who eat meat.
     
  18. ungovernable

    ungovernable Autonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,422

    117

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male
    Canada  Canada
    there's also the naziedges, some sxe assholes like FSU who act like real fascists...
     
  19. Valsira

    Valsira Experienced Member Experienced member


    73

    1

    0

    Dec 14, 2009
     
    What? Mental weakness because we don't want to fuck up our minds and bodies with drugs? Because we don't buy the idea that you need to be drunk/stoned/high to have fun? And how does that make someone untrustworthy? :/
     
  20. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    yes cocytus, please clarify, you think people who don;t do drugs are untrustworthy or people who claim sXe? If you think people who are clean are not trustworthy then that is easily the funniest thing i've ever read on this forum, because for me it is the total opposite.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - SxE Vegetarianism Veganism
  1. elahrairah
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,258